INVERSE DESIGN OF PHOTONIC DEVICES PARAMETERIZED USING GEOMETRIC PRIMITIVES

§101 §103 §112

DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Responsive to communications on 08/21/2026 Claims 1, 5-11, and 15-20 amended Claims 2-3, and 12-13 original Claims 4 and 14 canceled Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 pending Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 rejected Final Action THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Beginning Response to Arguments and Amendments Response to 35 USC § 112 Claims 1-20 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant amended the claims to overcome the previous rejection. Previous 112 rejection is withdrawn. Response to 35 USC § 101 Claims 1-20 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 Issue: Applicant argues that the amended claims provide an improvement to technology. Specifically, applicant argues that the claims when viewed as a whole provide “significant computational savings in the process of inverse design of physical devices.” And cites par 91-92, and 94 as evidence. Rule: MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) states “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification’s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691.” Analysis: Regarding the assertion that the claims as a whole provide computational savings, this seems to be an argument relating to an improvement of computer functionality. As understood by the examiner, the claim limitation as a whole improves the way a computer performs storing the initial design of a system by using a geometric shape primitive system rather than purely with voxels. By doing this, the functioning of the method is improved. The specification discusses prior art which uses Voxel representation and how the computer improves the way the computer stores and retrieves this data in memory. Furthermore, the claims recite the specific data structure used in this process (the geometric shape primitives which contain voxels). Conclusion: Previous 101 rejection is withdrawn. Issue: Applicant references limitations in claims 6-9 and 16-19 which demonstrate an improvement to technology which reduces the complexity of simulating different operating conditions. Analysis: Analysis is substantially similar to above, claims 6-9 and 16-19 inherent the limitations of claim 1 under 101 analysis. Because of this, claims 6-9 and 16-19 similarly inherit the improvements to technology. Conclusion: Previous 101 rejection is withdrawn. Issue: Applicant references claim 10 and 20, which state “controlling a fabrication system to fabricate the physical device.” Which the applicant argues is a practical application of the judicial exception. Rule: MPEP 2106.05(c) states “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two and whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. "[T]ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines." Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 658, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972)). If such a transformation exists, the claims are likely to be significantly more than any recited judicial exception or to integrate any recited judicial exception into a practical application. Analysis: In order for the claims to recite a practical application, there needs to be evidence or justification for the practical application. For example, creating an improved Photonic device. One section found relevant is the consideration of whether the claim affects the transformation of a thing (the transformation of base materials to a photonic device). The examiner does not conclude that the claim references this transformation, however, claim 10 inherent the improvement to technology of claim 1. Conclusion: Previous 101 rejection is withdrawn. Response to Double Patent Claims 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 20 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant has submitted terminal disclaimer which has been approved on 08/21/2026. Double patent rejection is withdrawn. Response to 35 USC § 103 Claims 1-20 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Applicant has amended claims to overcome previous 103 rejection. Issue: Applicant argues against Schubert as teaching the limitations of the amended claim. Applicant concedes that Schubert teaches a minimum feature sized which can be enforced by a minimum feature shape, which may be a circle, which is used to draw the design. Applicant argues however that the shape in Schubert is defined by the characteristics of the fabrication system, in that it is sized to ensure fabricability of the design. Applicant argues Schubert cannot teach the geometric shape primitives in amended claim 1 because the radius and the center location of the minimum feature shape of Schubert is not updated based on a gradient. Applicant also argues that if the radius of the minimum feature shape of Schubert were updated during the optimization process, it would no longer accurately represent the fabrication constraints, and would fail to operate correctly for its intended purpose. Rule: MPEP 2145 states “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. Where an applicant’s reply establishes that each of the applied references fails to teach a limitation and addresses the combined teachings and/or suggestions of the applied prior art, the reply as a whole does not attack the references individually as the phrase is used in Keller and reliance on Keller would not be appropriate. This is because “[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA].” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012).” Analysis: Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant arguments regarding what is made obvious in respect to Schubert. Rather than an express teaching, the test for obviousness in view of Schubert is what the teaching of the reference would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The examiner agrees that the shape in Schubert is sized in order to ensure fabricability of the design. However, the examiner disagrees that this suggests that Schubert cannot teach the geometric shape primitives. See par 91: “For example, the shape and arrangement of the first material and/or the second material within the design region may be reproduced (e.g., drawn) with a brush having a size that corresponds to the feature shape and a width corresponding to the predetermined width. In one embodiment, the feature shape includes at least one of a circle.” While this ensures fabricability of the design, it also performs the function of drawing the design regions with circles as recited in the claimed invention. Applicant argues that the radius and the center location of the minimum feature shape of Schubert is not updated based on a gradient. Examiner disagrees, the prior art of Schubert makes obvious optimizing structural parameters with a gradient through simulations, Par 56: “More specifically, system 500 is a design tool that may be utilized to optimize structural parameters (e.g., shape and arrangement of a first material and a second material within the dispersive region of the embodiments described in the present disclosure) of photonic integrated circuits based on first-principles simulations” and par 68: “The loss metric, in conjunction with an adjoint simulation, may be utilized to determine a structural gradient (e.g., influence of structural parameters on loss metric) for updating or otherwise revising the structural parameters to reduce the loss metric (i.e. increase the performance metric).” One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that the recitation of shape and arrangement of Schubert makes obvious modifying the location of the circles, see par 91: “In some embodiments, the design generated by the inverse design process optimizes at least one of the first material (e.g., first material 421 of FIG. 4A) or the second material (e.g., second material 423 of FIG. 4A) to be structured within the design region (e.g., dispersion region 430 of FIG. 4A) to be schematically reproducible by a feature shape with a predetermined width. For example, the shape and arrangement of the first material and/or the second material within the design region may be reproduced (e.g., drawn) with a brush having a size that corresponds to the feature shape and a width corresponding to the predetermined width. In one embodiment, the feature shape includes at least one of a circle” furthermore, the prior art of Schubert also makes obvious modifying the size of the circles within the same embodiment, Par 91: “In the same or other embodiments, the predetermined width of the feature shape may be between 20 nm and 200 nm. For example, the predetermined width of the feature shape may be 100 nm, 140 nm, 180 nm, or otherwise.” As understood by one ordinarily skilled in the art, these teachings suggest an optimization using of the size and arrangement of circles which produce the shape. Where arrangement makes obvious center location when viewed in context of a circle, and where width of a shape makes obvious radius when viewed in context of a circle. Lastly, the statement that if the radius of the minimum feature shape of Schubert were updated during the optimization process, it would no longer accurately represent the fabrication constraints, and would fail to operate correctly for its intended purpose does not seem to be supported in the specifications of Schubert. As understood, the specification of Schubert accounts for this idea. Where Schubert optimizes the structural parameters while still maintaining fabricability as an express goal. See Par 94: “ In one embodiment, adjusting the loss metric may maintain fabricability while providing a general direction within the parameterization space to obtain designs that will ultimately result in increased performance while also maintaining device fabricability and targeted performance metrics” Conclusion: Examiner does not find applicant arguments convincing. Rejection is maintained by the examiner. Issue: Applicant argues reference Arisoy does not make up for the deficiencies in Schubert. Applicants argue that while Arisoy teaches updating a design space topology with optimization, that Arisoy only fits the primitives after the optimization is performed. Where the primitives are only manually editable topologies. Rule: MPEP 2145 states “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. Where an applicant’s reply establishes that each of the applied references fails to teach a limitation and addresses the combined teachings and/or suggestions of the applied prior art, the reply as a whole does not attack the references individually as the phrase is used in Keller and reliance on Keller would not be appropriate. This is because “[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA].” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012).” Analysis: Firstly, the examiner mapped the above limitations to Schubert, and therefore Arisoy is not needed to make up the deficiencies. In the previous mapping, Arisoy was introduced to make obvious the concept of “primitive” where Schubert did not expressly recite the term primitive but Arisoy provided the benefits and language. Arisoy abstract states “A topology optimization program of a CAD system generates a plurality of serial modifications to topology of a design space having an initial CAD geometry. A tracking agent stores, during each respective modification, observed geometry changes of the topology based on the respective modification. The tracking agent instantiates, in response to stored geometry changes, a set of one or more parametric primitives to represent the geometry changes. The CAD system may receive a final set of parametric primitives corresponding to the editable topology associated with an optimized design space determined by the topology optimization program.” As shown, the primitive objects of Arisoy represents tracked geometry changes based on optimization. As understood by the examiner, this is not simply only fitting the primitives after the optimization is performed, but instead the primitives are built representing the modifications. That said, Examiner agrees that Arisoy does not imply that the optimization is performed by modifying the primitives instead, which is a limitation that Schubert makes obvious in combination with Arisoy rather than an individual teaching. Conclusion: Examiner does not find applicant arguments convincing. Rejection is maintained by the examiner. End Response to Arguments and Amendments Information Disclosure Statement Responsive to IDS forms received on 05/12/2026 and 07/28/2026. IDS forms accepted by the examiner and all references considered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1, 5-6 , 11, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210149109 A1 “TWO-CHANNEL INTEGRATED PHOTONIC WAVELENGTH DEMULTIPLEXER” (Schubert_2021) In view of WO 2020005274 A1 “TRACKING A TOPOLOGY OPTIMIZATION TO CONSTRUCT AN EDITABLE TOPOLOGY” (Arisoy_2020) Claim 1:Schubert_2021 makes obvious A non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform actions for designing a physical device, the actions comprising: (par 82: “FIG. 8 shows an example method 800 for generating a design of a photonic integrated circuit, in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. It is appreciated that method 800 is an inverse design process that may be accomplished by performing operations with a system (e.g., system 500 of FIG. 5) to perform iterative optimization of a loss metric determined from a loss function that includes a performance loss and a fabrication loss. In the same or other embodiments, method 800 may be included as instructions provided by at least one machine-accessible storage medium (e.g., non-transitory memory) that, when executed by a machine, will cause the machine to perform operations for generating the design of the photonic integrated circuit.”) generating, by the computing system, an initial design based on a design specification, wherein the initial design includes a list of geometric shape See Figure 8. “Configure Simulated Environment (Examiner note: an initial design) to be Representative of Initial Description (Examiner note: design specifications) of Photonic Integrated Circuit” (810) Par 83: “Block 810 illustrates configuration a simulated environment to be representative of an initial description of a photonic integrated circuit (e.g., photonic device) that has been received or otherwise obtained. In some embodiments, the photonic integrated circuit may be expected to have a certain functionality (e.g., perform as an optical demultiplexer) after optimization. The initial description may describe structural parameters of the photonic integrated circuit within a simulated environment. The simulated environment may include a plurality of voxels that collectively describe the structural parameters of the photonic device. Examiner note: Where the simulated environment (initial design) includes structural parameters. Par 64: “ Each of the plurality of voxels (Examiner note: Where a plurality of voxels is a list) 610 may be associated with a structural value, a field value, and a source value. Collectively, the structural values of the simulated environment 601 describe the structural parameters of the photonic device. In one embodiment, the structural values may correspond to a relative permittivity, permeability, and/or refractive index that collectively describe structural (i.e., material) boundaries or interfaces of the photonic device (e.g., interface pattern 431 of FIG. 4B).” Examiners note: Where the structural parameters correspond to interface patterns. Par 46: “ FIGS. 4A-4L illustrate more detailed cross-sectional views of dispersive region 430 within an active layer (e.g., active layer 306 of FIG. 3B) included in a photonic demultiplexer 420 and the corresponding material interface pattern within the dispersive region 430 formed by the arrangement of a first material 421 (e.g., black colored regions within dispersive region 430 that may correspond to silicon) and a second material 423 (e.g., white colored regions within dispersive region 430 that may correspond to silicon dioxide). … Further, it is appreciated that certain elements of demultiplexer 420 may be omitted or otherwise be unlabeled for FIGS. 4A-4L (e.g., FIGS. 4C-4L do not illustrate input region 402, output regions 404, peripheral region 430, and the like). The structure within the dispersive region 430 of the various embodiments illustrated in FIGS. 4A-4L may include protrusions, islands, dendritic shapes, or other shapes and structures as illustrated. It is appreciated that in other embodiments there may be no protrusions, there may be no islands, there may be no dendritic structures, or there may be any number, including zero, of protrusions, islands of any material included in the dispersive region 430, dendritic structures, or a combination thereof.” Examiner note: Where the interface pattern includes a pattern of island shapes. determining, by the computing system, a set of structural parameters using the list of geometric shape par 63-64: “FIG. 6A illustrates a demonstrative simulated environment 601-A describing a photonic integrated circuit (i.e., a photonic device such as a waveguide, demultiplexer, and the like), in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. More specifically, in response to receiving an initial description of a photonic device defined by one or more structural parameters (e.g., an input design), a system (e.g., system 500 of FIG. 5) configures a simulated environment 601 to be representative of the photonic device. As illustrated, the simulated environment 601 (and subsequently the photonic device) is described by a plurality of voxels 610, which represent individual elements (i.e., discretized) of the two-dimensional (or other dimensionality) space. Each of the voxels is illustrated as two-dimensional squares; however, it is appreciated that the voxels may be represented as cubes or other shapes in three-dimensional space. It is appreciated that the specific shape and dimensionality of the plurality of voxels 610 may be adjusted dependent on the simulated environment 601 and photonic device being simulated. It is further noted that only a portion of the plurality of voxels 610 are illustrated to avoid obscuring other aspects of the simulated environment 601. Each of the plurality of voxels 610 may be associated with a structural value, a field value, and a source value. Collectively, the structural values of the simulated environment 601 describe the structural parameters of the photonic device. “ Examiner note: Where the set of voxels encompasses a set of structural parameters that is tested using the list of geometric shapes. wherein each geometric shape par 91: “In some embodiments, the design generated by the inverse design process optimizes at least one of the first material (e.g., first material 421 of FIG. 4A) or the second material (e.g., second material 423 of FIG. 4A) to be structured within the design region (e.g., dispersion region 430 of FIG. 4A) to be schematically reproducible by a feature shape with a predetermined width. For example, the shape and arrangement of the first material and/or the second material within the design region may be reproduced (e.g., drawn) with a brush having a size that corresponds to the feature shape and a width corresponding to the predetermined width. In one embodiment, the feature shape includes at least one of a circle” ) defined by a radius (, Par 91: “In the same or other embodiments, the predetermined width of the feature shape may be between 20 nm and 200 nm. For example, the predetermined width of the feature shape may be 100 nm, 140 nm, 180 nm, or otherwise.”) and a center location,( Par 56: “More specifically, system 500 is a design tool that may be utilized to optimize structural parameters (e.g., shape and arrangement of a first material and a second material within the dispersive region of the embodiments described in the present disclosure) of photonic integrated circuits based on first-principles simulations” ) and wherein each circle includes a plurality of voxels of the set of structural parameters; (par 63: “FIG. 6A illustrates a demonstrative simulated environment 601-A describing a photonic integrated circuit (i.e., a photonic device such as a waveguide, demultiplexer, and the like), in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. More specifically, in response to receiving an initial description of a photonic device defined by one or more structural parameters (Examiner note: which includes the circles outlined above) (e.g., an input design), a system (e.g., system 500 of FIG. 5) configures a simulated environment 601 to be representative of the photonic device. As illustrated, the simulated environment 601 (and subsequently the photonic device) is described by a plurality of voxels 610, which represent individual elements (i.e., discretized) of the two-dimensional (or other dimensionality) space. Each of the voxels is illustrated as two-dimensional squares; however, it is appreciated that the voxels may be represented as cubes or other shapes in three-dimensional space. It is appreciated that the specific shape and dimensionality of the plurality of voxels 610 may be adjusted dependent on the simulated environment 601 and photonic device being simulated. It is further noted that only a portion of the plurality of voxels 610 are illustrated to avoid obscuring other aspects of the simulated environment 601.”) simulating, by the computing system, performance of the initial design using the set of structural parameters to determine a performance loss value; Figure 8. “Configure Simulated Environment (Examiner note: an initial design) to be Representative of Initial Description of Photonic Integrated Circuit” (810). “Perform operational simulation of photonic integrated circuit in response to excitation source to determine performance metric” (820) “Determine loss metric based on perf. Loss associated with perf. Metric and fabrication loss associated with minimum feature size” (825) Examiner note: where the operational simulation is done with the voxels, which are the set of structural parameters as mapped above. Par 83: “Thus, in some embodiments an initial description may be a first description of the physical device described within the context of the simulated environment (e.g., a first input design for performing a first operational simulation).” and updating, by the computing system the radius and the center location of at least one geometric shape using a gradient of the performance loss value. Figure 8. “Configure Simulated Environment to be Representative of Initial Description of Photonic Integrated Circuit” (810). “Perform operational simulation of photonic integrated circuit in response to excitation source to determine performance metric” (820) “Determine loss metric based on perf. Loss associated with perf. Metric and fabrication loss associated with minimum feature size” (825). “Backpropagate loss metric through simulated environment to determine structural gradient” (830) “Revise design of Photonic Integrated Circuit by Updating Structural Parameters to adjust a loss metric” (835) Examiner note: Where updating structural parameters when the structural parameters includes an interface pattern of shapes makes obvious updating the radius and location of the center of that shape, especially when the shape encompasses a pattern of circle islands, where the only method of updating said shape could be changing the radius or location. Par 56: “FIG. 5 is a functional block diagram illustrating a system 500 for generating a design of a photonic integrated circuit (i.e., photonic device), in accordance with an embodiment of the disclosure. System 500 may be utilized to perform the inverse design process. More specifically, system 500 is a design tool that may be utilized to optimize structural parameters (e.g., shape (Examiner note: includes radius see below) and arrangement (Examiner note: A center location) of a first material and a second material within the dispersive region of the embodiments described in the present disclosure) of photonic integrated circuits based on first-principles simulations (e.g., electromagnetic simulations to determine a field response of the photonic device to an excitation source) and iterative optimization” … par 91: “ In one embodiment, the feature shape includes at least one of a circle,” … “ In the same or other embodiments, the predetermined width of the feature shape may be between 20 nm and 200 nm (Examiner note: A radius.”) Schubert_2021 does not expressly recite primitives Arisoy_2020 however, makes obvious primitives (par 7: “In an embodiment, the topology tracking agent at topology tracking stage 131 may instantiate a primitive 151 , such as a 3D shape that may be spherical, conical, cylindrical, prismic, toroidal, for example or any such shape that is readily available among common CAD tool applications.” … par 8: “During the topology optimization process, the CAD model geometry of the design space may change by growing, shrinking, or by the creation of new voids. Returning to FIG. 1 , at topology optimization stage 122, void regions 142 are produced, which is a geometry change to the void region 141. The topology tracking agent observes the new void regions 142, stores the size and location information and modifies the primitive 151 to generate primitive set 152, which includes a circumscribing primitive for each of void regions 142. The parameters for the primitive set may be stored by the topology tracking agent for step-wise management of a cumulative geometry representation of the topology optimization.”) Schubert_2021 and Arisoy_2020 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called structure optimization. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schubert_2021 and Arisoy_2020. The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a teaching and motivation proposed in the art. Schubert_2021 makes obvious a workflow for designing a photonic device through an iterative optimization process. Arisoy_2020 similarly teaches a more generic optimization process for tracking changes to a topology, which applies to the invention of Schubert_2021. Arisoy_2020 states “While currently available topology optimization tools can generate an optimized design model, editing that design model requires post processing by a manual reverse modelling that is tedious, time consuming, and imprecise. Due to the complexity of the topology optimization results, (e.g., a topology having complex internal void regions) it is very difficult to re-create CAD geometry using the tools available today. An automatic topology recovery of an optimized design according to the embodiments of this disclosure may include instantiating parametric primitive shapes, such as 3D solids, in a step-wise manner to represent geometry changes in parallel with each stage of a topology optimization process. For example, the primitive shapes may represent discrete sections of voids within the model as each change to the topology occurs during the optimization. By tracking the topology optimization and modifying the parametric primitive shapes along the way, a cumulative parametric geometry may be constructed that is ready for editing by conventional CAD tools.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the photonic optimization model of Schubert_2021 with the use of shape primitives of Arisoy_2020 for the benefit of allowing improved post-processing to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Claim 5: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein updating the radius and the center location of at least one geometric shape primitive of the list of geometric shape primitives using the gradient of the performance loss value includes (see claim 1) Schubert_2021 makes obvious using a fabrication loss value as a constraint. Figure 8. “Configure Simulated Environment to be Representative of Initial Description of Photonic Integrated Circuit” (810). “Perform operational simulation of photonic integrated circuit in response to excitation source to determine performance metric” (820) “Determine loss metric based on perf. Loss associated with perf. Metric and fabrication loss associated with minimum feature size” (825). “Backpropagate loss metric through simulated environment to determine structural gradient” (830) “Revise design of Photonic Integrated Circuit by Updating Structural Parameters to adjust a loss metric” (835) Par 90: “Block 825 shows determining a loss metric based on a performance loss associated with a performance metric and a fabrication loss associated with a minimum feature size. In some embodiments the loss metric is determined via a loss function that includes both the performance loss and the fabrication loss as input values” Examiner note: Where this acts as a constraint. See Par 47: “ Enforcement of such a minimum feature size and/or shape prevents the inverse design process from generating designs that are not fabricable by considering manufacturing constraints, limitations, and/or yield” Claim 6:The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5, Schubert_2021 makes obvious wherein the fabrication loss value represents at least a minimum feature size, Figure 8. “Configure Simulated Environment to be Representative of Initial Description of Photonic Integrated Circuit” (810). “Perform operational simulation of photonic integrated circuit in response to excitation source to determine performance metric” (820) “Determine loss metric based on perf. Loss associated with perf. Metric and fabrication loss associated with minimum feature size” (825). “Backpropagate loss metric through simulated environment to determine structural gradient” (830) “Revise design of Photonic Integrated Circuit by Updating Structural Parameters to adjust a loss metric” (835) and wherein the fabrication loss value is determined at least in part by comparing the radius of each geometric shape primitive to a threshold size. Par 47: “In one embodiment, interfaces formed by the first material 421 and the second material 423 may be shaped such that a radius of curvature defining any given radius of a material interface within the dispersive region 430 has a magnitude of less than a threshold size. “ … Par 92: “This process of determining the fabrication loss may promote structural elements of the design region having a radius of curvature less having a magnitude of less than a threshold size (i.e., inverse of half the minimum feature size).” Claim 11: Claim 11 is an effective duplicate to claim 1. Where Schubert_2021 teaches the additional limitations of A computer-implemented method for designing a physical device, the method comprising: (par 16: “Embodiments of photonic integrated circuits, including a multi-channel photonic demultiplexer, as well as a method for generating a design of photonic integrated circuits are described herein”). Therefore claim 11 is rejected under a similar rational to claim 1. Claim 15: The method of claim 11, further comprising updating the radius and the center location of at least one geometric shape primitive of the list of geometric shape primitives (Par 56: “FIG. 5 is a functional block diagram illustrating a system 500 for generating a design of a photonic integrated circuit (i.e., photonic device), in accordance with an embodiment of the disclosure. System 500 may be utilized to perform the inverse design process. More specifically, system 500 is a design tool that may be utilized to optimize structural parameters (e.g., shape (Examiner note: includes radius see below) and arrangement (Examiner note: A center location) of a first material and a second material within the dispersive region of the embodiments described in the present disclosure) of photonic integrated circuits based on first-principles simulations (e.g., electromagnetic simulations to determine a field response of the photonic device to an excitation source) and iterative optimization” … par 91: “ In one embodiment, the feature shape includes at least one of a circle,” … “ In the same or other embodiments, the predetermined width of the feature shape may be between 20 nm and 200 nm (Examiner note: A radius.”) using a gradient of a fabrication loss(Figure 8. “Configure Simulated Environment to be Representative of Initial Description of Photonic Integrated Circuit” (810). “Perform operational simulation of photonic integrated circuit in response to excitation source to determine performance metric” (820) “Determine loss metric based on perf. Loss associated with perf. Metric and fabrication loss associated with minimum feature size” (825). “Backpropagate loss metric through simulated environment to determine structural gradient” (830) “Revise design of Photonic Integrated Circuit by Updating Structural Parameters to adjust a loss metric” (835)) vector, (par 64: “The field value describes the field (or loss) response that is calculated (e.g., via Maxwell's equations) in response to an excitation source described by the source value. The field response, for example, may correspond to a vector describing the electric and/or magnetic fields (e.g., in one or more orthogonal directions) at a particular time step for each of the plurality of voxels 610.”) wherein the gradient of the fabrication loss vector is determined based on one or more fabrication constraints. Par 90: “Block 825 shows determining a loss metric based on a performance loss associated with a performance metric and a fabrication loss associated with a minimum feature size. In some embodiments the loss metric is determined via a loss function that includes both the performance loss and the fabrication loss as input values” Examiner note: Where this acts as a constraint. See Par 47: “ Enforcement of such a minimum feature size and/or shape prevents the inverse design process from generating designs that are not fabricable by considering manufacturing constraints, limitations, and/or yield” Claim 16: Claim 16 is an effective duplicate to claim 6 except that it depends on claim 15. Therefore claim 16 is rejected under a similar rational to claims 6 and 15. Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020, and further in view of WO 2022174322 A1 “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR 3D PRINTING” (Hambleton_2022) as motivated by “Additive manufacturing for the development of optical/photonic systems and components” (Berglund_2022) Claim 2: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein determining the set of structural parameters includes (see claim 1) Schubert_2021 and Arisoy_2020 do not expressly recite determining a signed distance field for each geometric shape primitive. Hambleton_2022 however makes obvious determining a signed distance field for each geometric shape primitive. (par 47: “At least one of the generators may apply signed distance fields (SDF) or implicit surfaces, such that the generator is or creates a SDF representation of the complex geometry. For example, a very simple generator is one for rendering a box (such as a cube). The input to the box generator is a sequence of 19 numbers (i.e. bounds of the box and its position/orientation in space), as well as the hardware state of the associated printer assembly 14. The code of the box generator uses the inputs to calculate the shortest distance from the box to any other point. Points inside the box will have a negative distance, points on the boundary of the box will have distance of 0, and points outside the box will have a positive distance. This measurement is known as the "signed distance") Par 44: “Example generators include: (1) Winding number calculation (which does not require hardware state); (2) Inverse Distance Transform to define an SDF based on primitives;” Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020, and Hambleton_2022 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called designing a physical device. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020, and Hambleton_2022. The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a teaching and motivation as proposed in the prior art. Hambleton_2022 states par 88 “Use of SDFs is robust because they do not depend on meshes having these conditions in order to produce a well-defined result (Examiner note: for 3D printing)” and par 83: “According to method 400, at least one of the generators applies signed distance fields (SDF) or implicit surfaces to the inputs to create a SDF representation of the complex geometry.” The prior art of Schubert_2021 creates designs for photonic devices using complex geometry which may pose issues when printing or fabricating using a non SDF approach. Berglund_2022 page 634 states “additive manufacturing methods are an emerging force in the area of optics and photonics. They allow freedom of design form, integration of approaches, and new design concepts.” When using an additive approach for photonic devices as outlined by Berglung_2022 to design new forms, such as those created in the workflow of Schubert_2021, one would be motivated to use signed distance fields as taught by Hamletone_2022 in order to map complex geometry and produce a well defined result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the workflow of designing free and new concepts of photonic devices using geometric shape primitives of Schubert_2021 and Arisoy_2020 with the use of signed distance fields of Hambleton_2022 for the benefit of representing complex geometry and producing a well-defined result when 3d printing to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Claim 3 The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 2, wherein determining the set of structural parameters Hambleton_2022 makes obvious includes projecting each of the signed distance fields onto a density field. (par 53: “A common set of generators that work together to produce the final image is set out below: - SDF Box generator A: creates a greyscale image that represents the SDF of a box at some location, - SDF Box generator B: creates a greyscale image that represents the SDF of a box at some other location, - SDF Union generator: uses the output of A and B and combines them into one greyscale image that represents the union SDF of the two boxes, - Threshold generator: uses the output of the Union (i.e. a greyscale image) and decides which pixels should be fully white or fully black. This used to cure the resin. “) Examiner note: Where the examiner interprets this to be projecting each of the signed distance fields into a density field in light of the specifications. See par 101 of the instant application specifications “Values at corresponding positions of each signed distance field may be added to the corresponding voxels of the density field, such that all of the signed distance fields are combined into the single density field to create the structural parameters 708 for the simulated environment 606.” Whereas stated previously it would have been obvious to combine the workflow of designing free and new concepts of photonic devices using geometric shape primitives of Schubert_2021 and Arisoy_2020 with the use of signed distance fields of Hambleton_2022 for the benefit of representing complex geometry and producing a well-defined result when 3d printing to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Claim 12: Claim 12 is an effective duplicate of claim 2 except that it depends on claim 11 and is therefore rejected under the same rational as claims 2 and 11. Claim 13: Claim 13 is an effective duplicate of claim 3 except that it depends on claim 11 and is therefore rejected under the same rational as claims 3 and 11. Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020, and further in view of “Finding the distance between two circles” (StackOverflow_2011) Claim 7:The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5, wherein the fabrication loss value (see claim 5) Schuber_2021 makes obvious represents at least a minimum distance, (par 47: “In the same or other embodiments, different or additional checks on metrics related to fabricability may be utilized to enforce a minimum width or spacing as a minimum feature size.”) and wherein the fabrication loss value is determined Schuber_2021 and Arisoy_2020 do not expressly recite at least in part by pairwise differences between vectors representing the center locations of geometric shape primitives and the radii of the geometric shape primitives. StackOverflow_2011 however makes obvious at least in part by pairwise differences between vectors representing the center locations of geometric shape primitives and the radii of the geometric shape primitives. (page 2: Calculate the distance between each circles center point, then subtract the radius' of each circle from that. For the purpose of a demonstration, we will assume the following: The 200px diameter (r1 = 100) circle is at the (x, y) coordinates of (0, 0), and the 100px diameter (r2 = 50) circle is at (x, y) coordinates of (150, -150). (Examiner note: Can be represented by vectors) Given that the distance between their centers is: PNG media_image1.png 30 248 media_image1.png Greyscale To find the distance between their boundaries, we subtract the radius of each circle from the distance between their centers. This leaves us with the equation: sqrt((x2 − x1)^2 + (y2 − y1)^2) − (r2 + r1)) (Examiner note: where this is a pairwise difference in the xy plane. ) Schuber_2021, Arisoy_2020, and StackOverflow_2011 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called topology optimization. Where StackOverflow_2011 teaches relevant geometry calculations which apply to topology optimization that one ordinarily skilled in the art would know. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schuber_2021, Arisoy_2020, and StackOverflow_2011. The rationale for doing so would have been obvious to try. Schuber_2021 makes obvious using spacing as a metric for a fabrication loss value, where the feature elements encompass circles. StackOverflow_2011 provides a method of calculating the distance between two circles geometrically. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize using a mathematical formula would allow them to get the distance between the two geometrical primitives, and it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art that taking the difference between the center of each point and subtracting the radius would provide the distance between two circles. This is geometric math that one ordinarily skilled in the art would know or be able to perform. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the workflow and fabrication loss of geometric primitives of Schuber_2021 and Arisoy_2020 with the geometric calculation of distance between circles of StackOverflow_2011 for the obvious result of determining the distance between the circle geometric primitives to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Claim 17:Claim 17 is effectively similar to claim 7 except that it depends on claim 15, and is therefore rejected under the same rational as claims 7 and 15. Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020, and further in view of US 20080293333 A1 “METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING THE SIZE OF AN EDGE EXCLUSION ZONE OF A SUBSTRATE” (Zhang_2008), " Distance Between Line and Circle” (MathStackExchange_2015), Claim 8:The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5, wherein the fabrication loss value represents (see claim 5) Schuber_2021 and Arisoy_2020 do not expressly recite at least a boundary buffer, and wherein the fabrication loss value is determined at least in part by Schuber_2021 and Arisoy_2020 do not expressly recite comparing coordinates of the center location of each geometric shape primitive to threshold locations defined by a boundary buffer size. Zhang_2008 however makes obvious at least a boundary buffer, (“par 38: “Turning to FIG. 1, a schematic cross-sectional view of a portion of a substrate 100 is provided. The substrate 100 may include two major surfaces 102, 102', and an edge 104. Each major surface 102, 102' of the substrate 100 may include a device region 106, 106' upon which devices may be fabricated, and an exclusion region 108, 108' (termed `edge exclusion zone` herein) upon which device fabrication is not meant to occur. “) Schuber_2021, Arisoy_2020, and Zhang_2008 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called designing a physical device. Schuber_2021 and Arisoy_2020 teach optimization methods for designing a device, and Zhang_2008 teaches a method for manufacturing of physical devices. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schuber_2021, Arisoy_2020, and Zhang_2008. The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a teaching and motivation proposed in the art. Zhang_2008 par 39 outlines the importance of buffer zones for designing devices, particularly in fabrication. “Because the edge exclusion zones 108, 108' occupy space unavailable for device fabrication, the width of the edge exclusion zones 108, 108' tends to be minimized to increase product yield. However, if the widths of the edge exclusion zones 108, 108' are too small, the zones 108, 108' may no longer operate adequately as buffers, and the device regions 106, 106' may be accidentally polished or otherwise adversely affected by edge polishing processes due to the close proximity between the edge 104 and the device regions 106, 106'. Moreover, the optimal width of the edge exclusion zones 108, 108' may vary based on the size and type of substrate, the fabrication processes to be performed on the substrate, and/or other end-user specifications, which may be stringent. Thus, it is useful to have precise control over the width of the edge exclusion zones 108, 108' to avoid unnecessary losses in yield while still maintaining the buffering function of the zones 108, 108', and also to meet any other end-use requirements.” The prior art of Schuber_2021 teaches fabrication constraints par 47:” Enforcement of such a minimum feature size and/or shape prevents the inverse design process from generating designs that are not fabricable by considering manufacturing constraints.” When using the optimization design of Schuber_2021 which accounts for fabrication constraints when designing a device that requires an edge exclusion zone, the inventor of Schuber_2021 would be motivated to include a constraint that accounts for those zones. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the device design workflow of Schuber_2021 and Arisoy_2020 with the edge exclusion in fabrication of Zhang_2008 for the benefit of ensuring an optimal width of edge exclusion zones for fabrication processes to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Schuber_2021, Arisoy_2020, and Zhang_2008 do not expressly recite comparing coordinates of the center location of each geometric shape primitive to threshold locations defined by a boundary buffer size. MathStackExchange_2015 however makes obvious comparing coordinates of the center location of each geometric shape primitive to threshold locations defined by a boundary buffer size. (page 1 : “Geometrically, the shortest distance from a circle to a straight line is the from the center of the circle perpendicular to the line.”)’ MathStackExchange_2015 is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is mathematics that is applied to geometry and vector calculations as used in the claimed invention. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schuber_2021, Arisoy_2020, Zhang_2008, and MathStackExchange_2015. The rationale for doing so would have been “obvious to try.” As outlined above, the user of Schuber_2021, Arisoy_2020, and Zhang_2008 would need to measure if a shape primitive is inside an exclusion zone. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize the usage of basic geometry to calculate “the shortest distance” from a circle to an edge. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the workflow and edge buffer of Schuber_2021, Arisoy_2020, Zhang_2008 with the use of geometry to detect if a circle is within an edge of MathStackExchange_2015 for an obvious result obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Claim 18: Claim 18 is an effectively similar to claim 8 except that it depends on claim 15, and is therefore rejected under the same rational as claims 8 and 15. Claims 9 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020, and further in view of “Robust design of topology-optimized metasurfaces” (Wang_2019) Claim 9: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the actions further comprise Schubert_2021 and Arisoy_2020 do not expressly recite changing at least one radius of at least one geometric shape primitive to simulate dilation or erosion of a corresponding feature during fabrication. Wang_2019 however, makes obvious changing at least one radius of at least one geometric shape primitive to simulate dilation or erosion of a corresponding feature during fabrication. PNG media_image2.png 540 987 media_image2.png Greyscale Examiners notes: Where as understood by the examiner, the edge deviation outlined in fig. 6 above is understood to be equivalent to the changing of the radius of the circular geometric shape primitive. Where this process is done to simulate erosion and dilation see abstract: “We show that topology-optimized meta surfaces can be made robust by incorporating the performance of geometrically eroded and dilated devices directly into the iterative optimization algorithm (examiner note: simulation).” Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020, and Wang_2019 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called optimizing physical designs. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020, and Wang_2019. The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a motivation and teaching proposed in the art. Wang_2019 states “abstract: An important design consideration is ensuring that devices are insensitive to imperfections arising from realistic fabrication processing.” Schubert_2021 also discusses fabrication constraints to ensure proper fabrication, see par 47 “fabrication loss … to ensure fabricability of the design.” The creator of the combined invention of Schubert_2021 and Arisoy_2020 would be then motivated to include a simulation that considers imperfections, as it is an important design consideration for optimizing the structure of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the optimization workflow of primitives for photonic devices of Schubert_2021 and Arisoy_2020 with the changing of radius so simulate dilation and erosion of Wang_2019 for the benefit of considering imperfections in the simulations to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Claim 19: Claim 19 is effectively similar to claim 9, except that it depends on claim 11. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as claims 9 and 11. 6. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020, and further in view of US 20210266088 A1 “TECHNIQUES OF ROBUST INVERSE DESIGN THAT ACCOUNT FOR MANUFACTURING VARIABILITIES DUE TO OPERATING CONDITIONS” (Lu_2021) Claim 10: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020 do not expressly recite wherein the actions further comprise controlling a fabrication system to fabricate the physical device by transmitting the list of geometric shape primitives to the fabrication system. Lu_2021 however, makes obvious wherein the actions further comprise controlling a fabrication system to fabricate the physical device by transmitting the list of geometric shape primitives to the fabrication system. . (par 71: “Each perturbed structural parameter 706 represents the structural parameters of the initial design 736 as they would be fabricated by the fabrication system under a different set of operating conditions. “ Examiner note: Where the structural parameters of Lu_2021 is interpreted to correspond to the final list of geometric shape primitives as outlined in the combined invention of Schubert_2021, and Arisoy_2020. Where this passage makes obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art the fact that a fabrication system Is used to fabricate the system created. See also claim 14 of Lu_2021: “wherein the actions further comprise transmitting the revised initial design to a fabrication system for fabrication.”) where one ordinarily skilled in the art understands this process to control a fabrication system. Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020 and Lu_2021 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called physical device design and optimization. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schubert_2021, Arisoy_2020 and Lu_2021. The rationale for doing so would have been applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. The prior art of Schubert_2021 is a fabrication optimization system for designing photonic devices. Lu_2021 is the same. It is obvious and predictable to one ordinarily skilled in the art that the purpose of designing the fabrication device is so that it could be fabricated. One ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that applying the known technique of transmitting revised initial design for fabrication would apply to Schubert_2021 for the predictable result of fabricating the designed system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the workflow and geometry primitives of Schubert_2021 and Arisoy_2020 with the transmitting of the final product for fabrication of Lu_2021 for the obvious and predictable result of fabricating the device to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Claim 20: Claim 20 is effectively similar to claim 10, except that it depends on claim 11. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rational as claims 10 and 11. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20200387577 A1 “CASCADING MODELS FOR OPTIMIZATION OF FABRICATION AND DESIGN OF A PHYSICAL DEVICE” US 20160179988 A1 “SIMULATION OF RESIZABLE BODIES USING A RIGID BODY SOLVER” –abstract “A computer-implemented method and system automatically adjusts the size of a rigid body model. The method and system construct a two-dimensional model or a three-dimensional model, where the model has one or more rigid bodies. The rigid bodies are converted into geometric primitives that represent a respective rigid body and enable the respective rigid body to resize. One or more of the primitives are constrained to one another. A solver process changes a size of at least one geometric primitive and a rigid body simulation process uses the resized primitive(s) as input.” … par 12: “ The primitives include at least one of a point, a line, a circle,” Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMAD HUSSAM SHALABY whose telephone number is (571)272-7414. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached at 5712723652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /A.H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2187 /EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187